To think that this is child abuse and should be illegal?

Back when I was born it was the done thing in hospital before coming home. Unless you opted out. Pretty much all males around my age and older would have had it done.
By the time I had my kids it wasn't the norm unless you opted in and only private hospitals would do it. So my boys aren't done and neither are most boys their age. There is a small percentage who have done it by choice and have had to arrange that which is costly.

So the SATC ladies being older than I am, for their generation it would have been the done thing when they were born that boys had it done in hospital right after birth. Which is why that would have been in the show.

I personally don't think it should ever be done unless medically necessary but I can see why it was a thing in SATC being generational. Don't know how prevalent it is in the US now, but where I am they no longer do it.

Follow the money. They don't do it for free.

It does sound made up doesn't it. Like it is antisemitic rumour created to discredit.

I thought this sounded made up.

And went and looked it up, and found this horrific story.

A mohel gave babies herpes, one of whom subsequently died.

I'm not sure if revulsion for the practise itself is outweighed by horror that the baby died.

web.archive.org/web/20061213112130/www.jewishjournal.com/home/preview.php?id=13676

No form of FGM is OK.

Anatomically the female equivalent of the foreskin is the clitoral hood. Removing this is a type of fgm and illegal everywhere in the world and never ok.

It's a Shame boys are not offered the same level of protection under the law.

No form of FGM is OK. It never offers a benefit to the individual it is performed on. It is done to dominate and control women. To suppress 'promiscuity' and cause lifelong issues.
Yes, both are genital mutilation, but one is justifiable in some instances, and the other is never justifiable. That is why FGM is illegal in the UK.

Yet one custom is tainted with misogyny, dominance, and control. The two are incomparable. Both wrong on my eyes. However, I can see instances where male circumcision is necessary and in the best interests of the patient. There is not 1 single benefit to FGM. Devoidong a young girl of experiencing pleasure, coping with pain, risking severe infections, and likely infertility is barbaric.

While I agree that's circumcision is unnecessary, I hugely disagree that it should be held in the same category as FGM/FGC, which is the most abhorrent custom.

A very kind & compassionate post!

im glad you're in a position to influence some people!

The reason your DS is getting infections is because it is too tight. Most boys can adjust the skin to wash and it’s enough to keep them clean.

Thats a medical reason for an issue that has occured

And just because a doctor says something as a blanket belief it doesnt make it accurate. He may well believe the penis is more 'clean' without a foreskin because he might be Muslim or Jewish and thats the lens through which he sees the issue. He will read research to back his bias up.

That’s absolutely disgusting 🤮 in the name of religion.

For some Orthodox Jews part of the ceremony the mohel sucks the blood from the freshly cut penis.

I read it back and I can see it's not that clear to be fair.

Apologies. It wasn’t clear (well at least to me!), but I now get what you’re saying….

I think you missed my point or rather it wasn't clear (!)

I was making the point that this practice is not spreading outside of the communities who do it, we're not in any way regressing as the PP bemoaned. Tom and Emma aren't getting their baby circumcised. Which is why I intentionally chose the most white names imaginable. Sorry if that wasn't clear.

It’s completely unacceptable and barbaric. How any parent can accept it for cultural or religious reasons is beyond me. Utterly gross.

However, FGM is much worse in terms of long term consequences.

Both should be against the law imo.

Really? Tom and Emma as an example here? At least keep it accurate and real, more likely Muhammad and Fatima. It’s a culture practiced in the main (like 99.9%) by the Pakistani community. And it’s abhorrent, and had it been something adopted by others, it would have been stamped out and made illegal years ago in this country. It is child abuse and absolutely has no place in civilised society.

But I want to state im against the idea for religious/cultural reasons!!

Its not a myth. I heard it from a doctor only weeks ago. My 6 year old had an infection, his foreskin is too tight apparently so he is going to need a procedure to cut it or remove it (to prevent further infections) germs can get stuck under the skin and apparently its more hygienic to not have it.

As usual the UK tiptoeing around this because it’s religious and cultural. Whilst FGM is very different they are both done for cultural and religious reasons. Tackle both at once, it’s disgusting. Although I expect the government will throw money at this to normalise it etc, more taxpayer money we can’t afford for people to abuse their children rather than the government standing up and protecting these children.

If you liken male circumcision to FGM, men may think that as they are circumcised and totally happy with it, what is the fuss about FGM. It slightly undermines how horrific FGM is.

A lot of people will obey the law as long as it doesn't go against their religion. Where law and religion conflict, religion will take priority. In this case I imagine there's a lot of people who currently arrange for medically safe circumcisions who, if it were made illegal, would go for underground options or travel abroad to places where health and safety procedures might be less robust.

I think a lot of people who like to weigh in on issues like this on places like Mumsnet have no religion of their own, don't really understand how religious practice works, and make all sorts of uninformed comments as a result.

The comparison is unhelpful. Whilst I disagree completely with medically unnecessary male infant circumcision, it's a very different thing which on the whole, is far less harmful and dangerous than FGM.

Additionally, male circumcision is complicated by the fact that there are relatively commonplace valid medical reasons for It to be carried out in childhood.

Male circumcision is also already culturally mainstream and completely unquestioned within communities which are very much larger and more diverse than the communities which practice FGM. Including some which are native to and have a long history within the UK.

Within the work on FGM, education and trying to create cultural shifts has been just as important as legislation and enforcement. And huge progress has been made, which mustn't be reversed.

Whereas we have not even begun to do the same work to spread the message within communities that male infant circumcision is harmful and wrong. Nothing remotely like that is being sanctioned or funded.

It is rash to jump from "this is completely sanctioned, legal and okay" to "this is now a crime" and there is no precedent example of this which is remotely similar, that I can think of.